Hamilton: One step to stop dubious gimmickry

One of the dirty little secrets of the starve government movement is that it encourages law enforcement to pursue something called “asset forfeiture.”

Ask 10 Oklahomans what asset forfeiture is and you’ll probably get at least eight blank stares.

Go a step further and explain that asset forfeiture means their personal property can be seized – and never returned – just on the mere suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, and they’ll likely scoff.

This is America, by gawd. Innocent until proven guilty.

That may be true for individuals, but it’s no longer true for an individual’s property – mostly because cash-starved local law enforcement agencies are increasingly forced to rely on asset forfeiture to keep cops on the beat, squad cars fueled up and the office lights burning.

Remember the days when you rarely saw anyone other than an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper cruising our interstate highways? Not anymore. Now it’s common to see county sheriff or local police vehicles strategically positioned on the state’s concrete arteries.

These aren’t your father’s speed traps. They’re on the lookout for anyone that fits the “profile” of a mule transporting illegal drugs.

If an officer suspects any illegal activity, vehicles, cash and other personal property can be seized and kept by authorities – even if no arrests or convictions result.

Surely this is rare, you say? Not necessarily. According to a 2010 Institute for Justice report, Oklahoma law enforcement collects more than $10 million annually from asset forfeitures.

Some, yes, is from drug trafficking – exactly what the program was designed to do. Hit the cartels where it hurts: in their pocketbooks.

But state policymakers and civil libertarians suspect far too much of it is legalized booty – property seized from innocent individuals who simply can’t afford to fight the system to get it back.

Thankfully, state Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, has come to the rescue. He is proposing legislation that would tighten up existing law and protect innocents from having their assets unfairly – illegally – confiscated by authorities.

Loveless’ measure, Senate Bill 838, would allow personal assets to be forfeited only after conviction.

This is a Blue Moon moment in Oklahoma policymaking. It’s not often the conservative Loveless is championing legislation cheered by groups more often associated with the political left – in this case, the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It’s very good news it’s coming to a head,” said Brady Henderson, the ACLU-Oklahoma legal director. “It’s something that is getting worse.”

Not surprisingly, some who benefit most from the current system vehemently oppose any changes.

The loudest critic is Canadian County Sheriff Randall Edwards, who regards Loveless’ measure as “completely asinine.” He contends Loveless simply wants to shift control over the spoils generated by local law enforcement to a budget-strapped state government.

It is the argument of an empire builder – more concerned about protecting turf than protecting civil liberties.

The fact is, neither the Canadian County sheriff’s department nor any of Oklahoma’s law enforcement agencies should be put in a position where their day-to-day duties to protect and serve depend on asset forfeitures.

As Henderson put it, “It creates a direct conflict of interest and the potential for corruption for those involved” – law enforcement decisions being “influenced by the fact my livelihood depends on seizing these assets.”

Closing loopholes to ensure personal property cannot be seized on a whim – and kept – not only protects the public and keeps faith with the Constitution, but also protects law enforcement, which has had enough bad publicity in the last year.

Loveless’ bill is an important step – but it’s only a step. He and other lawmakers also must accept the challenge to ensure law enforcement is adequately funded without being forced to rely on dubious gimmickry.